At Witz' End - A sneak peak at the "new GM's" critically important product future
by Gary Witzenburg on Aug 17th 2009 at 7:55PM 
It was probably mid-1980, soon after the federal government agreed to guarantee massive loans to financially struggling Chrysler Corp., when then-Chrysler Chairman Lee Iacocca invited groups of auto media and analysts to its styling center for an off-the-record preview of what was coming two, three, even four years down the road. Most were impressed.We couldn't write about what we saw that day, but we could report in general terms that, much to our surprise, it looked pretty damn good. That was a very crafty move that probably altered outside perceptions – mostly by word of mouth – enough to help the company survive to launch those appealing new products and pay off those loans seven years early.
A couple years later, Ford was on the ropes thanks to woefully bad product quality and styling. Then-new Ford Chairman Don Petersen sat down next to me at a table full of auto writers wolfing down box lunches during the company's summer Dearborn Proving Ground "long-lead" press preview. Between bites of his sandwich, he opened his brief case, pulled out a handful of photos and surreptitiously showed them to me. They were styling models of the next-generation Thunderbird (which looked terrific) and Mercury Cougar (less so, but distinctive) and a pair of smooth, nicely proportioned compacts that would launch two years later as the Ford Tempo and Mercury Topaz.
The following summer, Ford Design PR leaders pulled some of us aside, one by one, took us into a design studio and showed us models of what would become the first-generation Taurus and Sable sedans and wagons that would save the company's bacon more than two years later. Again, we were on our honor not to report what we had seen. Again, the object was to subtly improve outside perceptions and expectations.
Fast-forward to Aug. 11, 2009, one month and a day after the "new General Motors" emerged from Chap. 11 bankruptcy. As you've heard, GM invited a substantial number of auto media and analysts to its Warren, Mich. Tech Center to open its kimono and show off pretty much everything it has coming in the next few years. Find out what was revealed after the jump.
New President and CEO Fritz Henderson began with a one-hour live webcast and Q&A. "Our goal is to make the customer the center of our universe," he asserted, adding that GM would use its "Fastlane" blog for customer research. And he said to expect no fewer than 25 new GM cars and crossovers in the next 24 months.
Early in his webcast pitch, he announced the number that would dominate auto news for the next several days: the Chevy Volt range-extender EV's projected EPA city rating of "at least" 230 miles per gallon! That astounding estimate is based on early drafts of an EPA rating process that will try to comprehend that most drivers will use zero fuel for the first 40 miles of battery electric driving and very little once the engine cranks up to keep it going. (The EPA city test covers 51 urban miles; only in the last 11 will the Volt consume any fuel.) And even the "combined" city/highway rating, Henderson added, should come in at better than 100 mpg.
Not surprisingly, that set off an orgy of comment and counter-comment. Folks both with and without technical knowledge and experience rushed to question, ridicule and debunk the claim, while some jumped in to defend it. As ABG Editor Sebastian Blanco reported that day, Volt Vehicle Line Executive Frank Weber said the 230 mpg number is reasonable because EPA's (proposed) method tries to accommodate owners who will rarely or never plug it in as well as those who will recharge its batteries off the grid every chance they get.
[230 mpg] will be little more than "mine is bigger than yours" boasting points virtually meaningless to real customer experience.
My take, some 15 months before the first production Volt hits the street: so what? On the one hand, GM almost certainly would not have publicized that number without pretty strong confidence in being able to back it up. On the other, whatever the final window sticker numbers, they will be little more than "mine is bigger than yours" boasting points virtually meaningless to real customer experience. Probably more than any other vehicle in the history of EPA emissions and fuel economy testing, the Volt's "Your actual mileage will vary" disclaimer will mean HUGE variation depending on how far and how it is driven, and charged.Far more important as GM labors to recover and become profitable again (as soon as the still-sagging economy permits) is everything else we saw and heard that day. They taped over our camera-phone lenses, then showed us: studios full of new and future fuel-efficient Buick (yes, Buick) and GMC cars and CUVs, including 2011 mid-size Regal and 2012 compact (Chevy Cruze-size) Buick sedans and a distinctive compact crossover for each; an impressive array of 2010, 2011, 2012, and beyond Chevrolet cars and CUVs; a display of rich, innovative and user-friendly Cadillac interior designs and a pair of stunning future Cadillac cars: a sleek, smaller-than-CTS rear-drive coupe (there will also be a sedan) and a regally handsome Mercedes S-Class-size front-drive sedan to replace the long-running fwd DTS and rwd STS.
Gallery: 2010 Chevy Spark
Smallest of the Chevies was the aggressively sporty Spark, which won a consumer competition over two other concepts and will arrive stateside in early 2012. Next up was the next-gen (Korean-built) Aveo, looking different and potentially polarizing but pretty cool to me. Then the much more conventional compact Cruze, slated to replace the Cobalt in the third quarter of 2010, which has a wonderful interior and -- like every new and future Chevy we saw – looks larger, more substantial and more expensive than it will be. And the next-gen Malibu, probably a 2013 model, a handsome, cleanly sculpted piece with a surprisingly rich interior.
Another pleasant surprise was the 2011 Orlando, a Cruze-based crossover substantially smaller than the new 2010 Equinox, which offers three roomy rows of seating. Also on display was a resplendent-in-black Volt and a pair of Volt interior bucks – one with white, the other black, passive touch-button control surfaces. We also toured the pre-production build shop that began assembling test and development Volts in mid-June at a rate of 10 a week and will complete its run of 80 by mid-September, and drove a variety of new and near-future GM products at the Milford Proving Grounds that afternoon. It was a very full and educational day.
"I now have no doubt about the future of this company," said a magazine-editor friend at its end. And, at the risk of annoying all those GM-haters out there, I couldn't agree more.
Gallery: Paris 2008: Chevrolet Cruze
Award-winning automotive writer Gary Witzenburg has been writing about automobiles, auto people and the auto industry for 21 years. A former auto engineer, race driver and advanced technology vehicle development manager, his work has appeared in a wide variety of national magazines including The Robb Report, Playboy, Popular Mechanics, Car and Driver, Road & Track, Motor Trend, Autoweek and Automobile Quarterly and has authored eight automotive books. He is currently contributing regularly to Kelley Blue Book (www.kbb.com), AutoMedia.com, Ward's Auto World and Motor Trend's Truck Trend and is a North American Car and Truck of the Year juror.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Mike!!ekiM 8:10PM (8/17/2009)
It's time for FORD to stop Price Gouging us on the Escape Hybrid. The drop in battery cost should be passed on to the consumer already.
Reply
Matt 9:03AM (8/18/2009)
I don't understand what this has to do with the article.
Hopefully GM will turn over a new leaf with all of these vehicles, though.
irrickw 12:59PM (8/18/2009)
The manufacturer's have been absorbing cost's of battery packs to the tune of thousands of dollars per vehicle. They need a breathing room to make a profit for a change instead of offering 2, 3 or $4,000 incentives.
The cost to produce the cars people want are not cheap. People demand Safe cars, Economical cars, cars that are comfortable with creature comforts and add-ons for free.
To manufacture safe cars it takes more engineering and the addition of more exotic metals. These materials are lighter and stronger which provides better safety as well as MPG's
lne937s 9:05PM (8/17/2009)
Let's see... Korean (Daewoo) engineered Spark. Korean engineered Aveo. Korean engineered Orlando. Korean engineered Cruze and (probably) Buick. And a Korean Cruze platform with Korean (LG) batteries for the Volt...
Not much to get patriotic about... unless you live in Korea.
Reply
GOT 8:21AM (8/18/2009)
Agreed. If these are the cars that are supposed to save GM then it appears as if GM is far past "Witz End" and is still falling down the cliff-of-failure.
These cars are only slightly interesting... at best.
oldraven 9:24AM (8/18/2009)
Slightly interesting or not, these are the cars the world has been telling GM they need to be making for the last five years. Now that they start listening, we're about to tell them they're making a mistake? If that's the case, it looks like GM is making our mistake.
J.Crew 9:25AM (8/18/2009)
Yeah, blame them for being a global company with resources. The profits return to America which is far more important at this point. Toyota, Honda, VW, Kia, Hyundai, and all others send their profits overseas... all except GM and Ford. I say they should both use their best resources to maximize profits.
This is a great article and shows an experienced opinion that some blogs and magazines are missing. Many are trying to sensationalize every story to generate hits, but do not cover things with the experience and knowledge that this person has. Good job ABG for bringing him on board to give us this insight from someone who has lived through similar experiences.
Rich 10:12AM (8/18/2009)
Not much to get excited about -- unless you're looking at sales figures. But that's the whole point.
Car companies aren't supposed to be making exciting products. They're supposed to be making unexciting *practical* and *affordable* products. This bodes well for GM.
lne937s 12:03PM (8/18/2009)
Daewoo Kalos, Daewoo Matiz, Daewoo Lacetti Premiere... If I wanted to buy a Korean car I would probably buy a Hyundai. GM is placing a big bet on the new Lacetti platform, which will have already have been on sale in Korea for over 2 years before we get it here (the previous version was sold here as the Suzuki Reno and Forenza).
I personally have no problem with buying foriegn cars if they offer a better product for the money, but I wonder if these will be any good. Previous Daewoos sold here tended not to compare well to the competition. I wouldn't let brand patriotism influence me to buy Korean cars if they weren't up to snuff.
And automotive profit margins are notoriously small, even in the best of times. GM has not been profitable on their car operations (not including trucks) for the majority of the past quarter century. If you are really that concerned with where the profits go (when there are any), buy stocks in Toyota, Hyundai, Honda, or Nissan- they are all publicly traded.
oOOOo 3:21PM (8/18/2009)
GM brings profits home? Really? To it's rightful owners?
Don't think so. Not anymore, anyway. The rightful owners were the stockholders. Should have become the bondholders. But instead all "profits" now flow to the UAW ... and into Ofama's campaign coffers. Plus a large chunk of the non-profits in the form of obscenely high wages extorted through decades of Union thuggery.
Even if GM pinches off a good product, you still have to get past the Union-Stolen stink. Don't know that I care what country the profits flow too, so long as it is not the UAW.
GOT 7:05AM (8/20/2009)
@oldraven:
The cars the world has been telling GM to make are the Beat (not the lackluster Spark) and several other fabulous concept cars that were used as bait-&-switch (IMHO). The cars that they are actually building are ugly derivatives (it must cost as much to build a great looking car as it does an ugly one).
@Rich,
"Car companies aren't supposed to be making exciting products. They're supposed to be making unexciting *practical* and *affordable* products. This bodes well for GM."
That's like saying restaurants aren't supposed to make food that tastes great and looks good, and only make food that is simply nourishing. The Trabant would fit your description perfectly.
I'm predicting that these cars will result in the same ole-failed-path for GM. The concepts are fabulous (as they always have been) but the end results are very poorly executed... visual-design wise.
GIUGIK1 6:37PM (8/20/2009)
I think you refer to the 2011 Regal as maybe being Korean designed , so I wanted to point out that the new Regal is the 2010 Opel Insignia, which German -designed and constructed. Still not American, but not Korean either.
lne937s 9:56AM (8/21/2009)
@GIUGIK1,
I was referring to the "small Buick" mentioned in the article. I realize that some of GM's platforms have been engineered by Opel... although the future of that is in question with the sale of their European operations.
Overall, I think GM is placing too much of its future on the new Daewoo Lacetti platform (aka Chevy Cruze). Remember that the previous generation of that car was sold here as a Suzuki Forenza, ranked as the worst affordable small car:
http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/Suzuki_Forenza/
"The 2008 Suzuki Forenza ranks 35 out of 35 Affordable Small Cars. This ranking is based on our analysis of 27 published reviews and test drives of the Suzuki Forenza, and our analysis of reliability and safety data."
Dafish 10:01PM (8/17/2009)
I did not see anything mentioned about a new small/mid-size truck in their furture plans. The Izusu designed/built Colorado/Canyon with its 5 cylinder engine with low horsepower and poor gas mileage has been a poor seller for years. They thought they could build a mid-size truck and everybody would buy it. It could not compete with any of the others out there.
Reply
S.P. 7:55AM (8/18/2009)
That's because it's ugly...you can't fix ugly if you keep building it expecting they will come. If they don't...it's obviously time to change it up a bit. The Ranger may be dated, but at least it aint ugly. (unless you go to South America - there, it's ugly http://cache.jalopnik.com/assets/resources/2008/04/Le_Mans_Ranger_WildTrak.jpg)
Rich 10:14AM (8/18/2009)
Let's see: does the Ranger have a box for the engine, and another box for the people? And at the back, does it have a swimming pool with a flap?
No, the Ranger is ugly because it's a truck. Dimwit.
ug 11:59PM (8/17/2009)
This is the kind of article you get in the movie blogosphere where Harry Knowles gushes over the turkey du jour because he got to tour the set and meet the actors.
In other words:
PLANT
Reply
Rich 10:16AM (8/18/2009)
Did you miss the part where he said they were invited?
paulwesterberg 11:07AM (8/18/2009)
Did you miss the part where Gary said he has been enabling generations of poorly designed cars by writing favorable articles convincing people that domestic auto makers have really turned the corner this time.
paulwesterberg 2:46PM (8/18/2009)
GM: Our next car doesn't use gas, it runs purely on lies.